Karnataka High Court
Shri Anil S/O Mallappa Naik vs Shri Bharat S/O Jyotiba Badavannache on 22 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662
MFA No. 100520 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100520 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100013 OF 2024
IN MFA NO. 100520 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
IIND FLOOR, DHAMNEKAR ARCHADE,
B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590 001,
NOW REP BY BALAKRISHNA K. NAYAK,
DEPUTY MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX,
OPP. HDMC, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SRI. ANIL S/O. MALLAPPA NAIK,
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
Location: HIGH R/O: HANDIGNUR, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. BHARAT S/O. JYOTIBA BADAVANNACHE,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
R/O: BHARAMALING GALLI, CHALUVINATTI,
POST: AGASAGI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 03.11.2015,
PASSED IN MVC.NO.1145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662
MFA No. 100520 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,82,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT WITHIN 3
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
IN MFA CROB NO. 100013 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ANIL S/O. MALLAPPA NAIK,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
R/O. HANDIGANUR, TAL & DIST: BELGAUM.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. BHARAT S/O. JYOTIBA BADAVANNACHE,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
R/O. BHARAMLING GALLI, CHALUVINATTI,
POST. AGASAGA, TAL & DIST: BELGAUM.
2. THE MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
2ND FLOOR, DHAMANEKAR, ARCADE,
B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BELGAUM-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.100520/2016 FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL AND CROB, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662
MFA No. 100520 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
JUDGMENT
MFA No.100520/2016 is filed by the appellant-insurance
company and MFA Crob.No.100013/2024 is filed by appellant-
claimant challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.1145/2014. Both the appeal as well as the cross objection
are arising out of the judgment and award dated 03.11.2015
passed in MVC No.1145/2014 on the file of the XI Addl. District
Judge & Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.S.Koliwad for the
appellant/insurance company and learned counsel Sri.Ashok
A.Naik, for the cross-objector/claimant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error
in saddling the liability on the insurance company as the driver
of the offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive
Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and motor vehicle non transport.
Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident is light goods
vehicle. The driver was not having the endorsement on his
driving licence to drive the goods vehicle. Hence, he seeks to
saddle the liability on the owner of the vehicle. It is further
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in
assessing the disability of the injured at 20% placing reliance
on the evidence of PW-2 Doctor, who is in the habit of giving
disability certificate on higher side. Hence, he seeks to re-
assess the same at 13% and modify the compensation
accordingly.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the cross-
objector/claimant supports the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal and submits that insofar as the issue
with regard to the driving licence is concerned, the said issue is
no more res integra, as it is covered by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited1, hence, the Tribunal
is justified in saddling the liability on the insurance company.
He further submits that though the Tribunal has assessed the
disability on higher side, but the award of compensation by the
Tribunal under the heads of pain & suffering, loss of income
during the laid-up period is on the lower side and the Tribunal
has also not awarded any compensation under the head of loss
of amenities, etc., which requires to be re-assessed. Hence, he
AIR 2017 SCC 3668
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
seeks to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company by
allowing the cross-objection filed by the claimant.
5. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record including the Tribunal
records.
6. The claimant met with the accident on 02.03.2014
and sustained fracture of tibia & fibula. PW-2, who is not a
treated doctor, has entered the witness box and deposed that
the claimant has sustained 40% disability to the whole body,
considering his evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the
disability at 20%. In my considered view, taking note of the
injuries sustained by the claimant, the assessment of disability
by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
7. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence available
on record and after assessing the notional income of the
claimant-injured and taking note of the award of compensation
by the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that the
Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation under
the head of loss of pain & suffering, loss of income during laid-
up period and the compensation is required to be awarded
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
under the head of loss of amenities, if the said compensation is
awarded by re-assessing the same in favour of the claimant-
cross objector, then it would be more or less the same
compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence,
this Court is of the considered view that there is no need to
modify the compensation by reducing or enhancing the same.
8. Insofar as the issue of not having driving licence to
drive the vehicle in question is concerned, the said issue is no
more res integra as the same is covered by the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, referred supra.
Admittedly, the vehicle in question was light goods vehicle
having weight less than 7500 kg. Admittedly, the driver on
wheels was having the licence to drive light motor vehicle
(LMV). In view of the enunciation of law laid by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited referred supra, the
contention of the insurance company is devoid of merits and
the same is accordingly rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
9. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any
error in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Hence, both the
appeal filed by the insurance company as well as the cross
objection filed by the cross objector are dismissed.
The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSR
Ct-an
